"Tesselator" <jimmmboe@hotmail.com> writes:

> Actually I think it's more rude to incinuate that someone is not polite
> by top posting than it is to top post.  But that's comming from a guy
> who moved out of the USA cuz he thought most Americans were too rude to
> deal with and moved to Japan where the people are known for politeness.

Who are you talking about now?

> So Bruce,  Let's see ya call up the RFC number that that is located in.
> I happen to know that you can not do it.  Maybe if you write one up real
> quick...  LOL.

RFC1855, as many others have pointed out. Doubtless you won't be able to find
it, either, so:

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response."

So as far as I read it, that's includign summary or quoted sections
above your reply. 

"Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to
a message before seeing the original."

And this is where the 'top-posting is okay becasue you just read down
the messages in a thread' argument is blown out of the water.

"Giving context helps everyone.  But do not include the entire
original!"

tada. And this is where people who top-post because tehy're too lazy
to trim get yelled at as well. Beautiful.

Yes, this is an RFC, yes, this is an ifnormation RFC, but before you
leap to say 'well it doesn't matter than', you should go through the
RFC index and see what other tings are considered informational.

B>